University of San Diego Digital USD School of Peace Studies: Faculty Scholarship School of Peace Studies 2010 Rethinking the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Identity, Politics, Scholarship Philip Gamaghelyan Phd University of San Diego, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/krocschool-faculty Part of the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons Digital USD Citation Gamaghelyan, Philip Phd, "Rethinking the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Identity, Politics, Scholarship" (2010). School of Peace Studies: Faculty Scholarship. 1. https://digital.sandiego.edu/krocschool-faculty/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Peace Studies at Digital USD. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Peace Studies: Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital USD. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Identity, Politics, Scholarship Phil Gamaghelyan* Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, 16 Whites Avenue, Suite 51, Watertown, MA 02472 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) Received 5 August 2008; accepted 18 May 2009 Abstract This article builds on the author’s research concerning the role of collective memory in identity- based conflicts, as well as his practical work as the co-director of the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation and as a trainer and facilitator with various Azerbaijani-Armenian dialogue initiatives. It is not a comprehensive study of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but presents a general overview of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, what has contributed to its failure, and which areas require major rethinking of conventional approaches. The discussion does not intend to present readers with a set of conclusions, but to provide suggestions for further critical research. Keywords Karabakh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, identity conflict * Phil Gamaghelyan is the co-founder and co-director of the IMAGINE Center for Conflict Transformation (www.imaginedialogue.com), a non-political organization dedicated to positively transforming relations in conflict-torn societies. Earlier, he served as a trainer and facilitator in dialogue initiatives organized by Harvard University, Brandeis University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He holds an MA in Inter-communal Coexistence from Brandeis University and a BA in Political Science from Yerevan State Linguistic University. What makes the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict1 intractable? Why did 15 years of negotiation fail to produce any results? What is the state of research and scholarship on this conflict? Is there adequate literature available to understand and resolve the conflict? Can a better understanding of the conflict lead to the development of a more efficient peace process? This article attempts to answer these questions by analyzing the major factors contributing to the continuation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. It assesses whether the current peace process adequately addresses these factors and suggests ways to make the peace process more effective. Until now, the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) peace process has been limited to official negotiations between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno- Karabakh and the return or exchange of territories. In other words, the process has been focused on interests. In recent years, however, Rothman and Olson (2001), among other scholars, have argued that such an interest-based approach “can be an appropriate method of resolution in conflicts where resources and interests are the only issues at stake.” Furthermore, Rothman and Olson established that when conflict involves identity-based issues, such as conflicting perceptions of history, “negotiated settlements have only rarely been able to end wars effectively. ...Bargaining over those issues [interests] without prior and adequate attention first to identity issues has the effect of further polarizing the parties” (Kelman 1995). This article argues that the political process itself has been mismanaged. There are a large number of stakeholders whose interests require lasting peace, yet these interests are rarely understood and articulated, and their potential for resolving the conflict is underutilized. In addition to politics, there are other factors that influence the conflict. Specifically, the conflict has a strong 1 In this article, the author discusses not only the conflict over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, but also the dynamics of the larger clash between the Azerbaijani and Armenian societies. The term ‘Armenian-Azerbaijani’ conflict is employed when referring to this broader dynamic and the term ‘Nagorno-Karabakh conflict’ is used when referring specifically to the territorial issue. identity component that manifests itself in deep mutual mistrust rooted in hostile historical memories. The identity needs of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, however, are neglected in the current official Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. The policymakers and negotiators hardly even acknowledge the presence of such a factor. The road to resolution, however, requires them to address the underlying identity fears along with the interests of the parties involved. The Armenian- Azerbaijani conflict is intractable not because its root causes cannot be resolved, but rather because they have hardly been understood or articulated, let alone addressed. This article is divided into three parts; the first presents the structure of the argument and the conflict. The second part examines Armenian and Azerbaijani identities and their roles in the conflict, asserting that it is largely an identity-based conflict rooted in deep mistrust and animosity between the two societies. Here, we examine the relationship between the most commonly held historical narratives in present-day Armenian and Azerbaijani societies and identify those elements of collective memory that contribute to the continuation of the conflict. After exploring the role of historical memory in the conflict, both on the political and societal level, this section offers suggestions for addressing the underlying identity needs. The third part examines the political process. It questions whether the current peace process, limited to the political level, is the most efficient format for resolving the conflict. It argues that this protracted conflict has many dimensions other than political and that its resolution requires a comprehensive long-term strategy aimed at improving the relations between the two societies, where the official negotiations alone are inadequate. A stakeholder analysis shows that improved relations and a sustainable peace between Armenians and Azerbaijanis would better serve most of the actors’ interests. It stands to reason that any long-term, comprehensive peace process would have to be designed in accordance with the interests of the major stakeholders. An analysis of stakeholder interests helps to identify the actors who are genuinely concerned with a sustainable peace and can serve to locate resources and supporters during the implementation of the peace process. Moreover, political analysis can expose obstacles to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including its potential spoilers, as well as outline ways for limiting their influence or transforming them into actors interested in peace. The fourth and final part examines the main trends in existing scholarship and literature on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and its resolution. This part does not represent an in depth review of literature, but rather an attempt to group together the major themes as well as point out the areas that need further research. The scholarship on this conflict is divided into goal-oriented and process- oriented approaches. The goal-oriented writings, constituting the bulk of the scholarship, are divided into three major trends based on their preferred final solution to the status of NK. Writers who focus on the process of conflict resolution rather than the outcome represent a new and growing trend in the literature. This trend, if developed, can transform the thinking about resolutions to the NK conflict and generate the knowledge necessary to achieve a breakthrough. In the conclusion, the article outlines a few key areas in which the scholarship on this conflict, as well as the political process, needs to be developed to find a lasting solution. Structure of the Conflict From 1918 until 1920, independent Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a war over Nagorno- Karabakh (Artsakh in the Armenian language) that weakened both and made them easy targets for the advancing Red Army. After the Sovietization of the Caucasus, the NK territory was transferred back and forth between Armenia and Azerbaijan several times. In 1923, Stalin, as part of his ‘divide and rule’ policy, placed the overwhelmingly Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, creating dissatisfaction among Armenians. He also gave the NK autonomous status, thus dissatisfying the Azerbaijanis. By some accounts, Stalin personally drew the Nagorno- Karabakh’s borders “so as to leave a narrow strip of land separating it physically from Armenia” (Walker 1991). With some exceptions,2 Armenian-Azerbaijani relations were calm during the Soviet period. The recent phase of the conflict over what was then called the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), a small region of 1,699 sq mi (4,400 sq km) with a population of 186,100 (based on the Soviet census of 1989), began in 1987